Dwight, Dwight, Dwight wrote:
If lanes 1 and 2 are "way too tight" to run the 400, why does every damn athlete cut right into lane 1 when possible?
It's only dreaded when your running the same distance in lanes. Once you break from lanes running a shortest distance more important than tightness of the curve.
Dixon is fighting championship demons. He can run fast in the regular season but can't put it together when it counts most.
Come at me, bro wrote:
Dwight, Dwight, Dwight wrote:
If lanes 1 and 2 are "way too tight" to run the 400, why does every damn athlete cut right into lane 1 when possible?
You trolling? Or do you have a double digit IQ?
Apparently you were repeatedly dropped on your noggin as a child.
LetsRun.com wrote:
Speaking of calling it, am I crazy for think the Kansas guy is going to win the 800? I'm calling it now.
ESPN. I'm avaialble for hire. Just listen to my ESPN + broadcast of the Ivy League champs. I promise you I'll improve the distance commentary by 300%.
Is is just me, or does it seem weird that an NCAA team could win every event and still lose the meet? Shouldn't winning a title pay out a higher point premium relative to second, third, etc.?
rojo wrote:
LetsRun.com wrote:
Speaking of calling it, am I crazy for think the Kansas guy is going to win the 800? I'm calling it now.
ESPN. I'm avaialble for hire. Just listen to my ESPN + broadcast of the Ivy League champs. I promise you I'll improve the distance commentary by 300%.
What I will say is that I like John Anderson a lot better than Ato Bolden
if this announcer asks one more person to dance...
Rockgip wrote:
What I will say is that I like John Anderson a lot better than Ato Bolden
You're joking right. John is great at interviews. Ato is great at spring analysis. They are totally different jobs.
The problem with this is there is no professional play by play guy (basically three field events are doing the commentary and all of them should be color only). They need a play by play person and a distance person.
We have a couple of flash interviews up:
What happened to Monson in the 3k? I assumed she'd rock it. I guess you never know how people are going to respon when doubling and when they've already won something.
Conner Mantz always looks like he is sprinting
LetsRun.com wrote:
What happened to Monson in the 3k? I assumed she'd rock it. I guess you never know how people are going to respon when doubling and when they've already won something.
she's not the NCAA XC champion so it's not that much of a surprise. She was running in lane 2 the entire race and could never settle in and ran out of gas.
Morgan Fairchild, at age 69, just won the 3000m!!!
For sure those are different roles each plays though I would disagree on Boldon. I don't personally think he's great at analyzing sprinting/hurdling.
firsttimencaachampion wrote:
LetsRun.com wrote:
What happened to Monson in the 3k? I assumed she'd rock it. I guess you never know how people are going to respon when doubling and when they've already won something.
she's not the NCAA XC champion so it's not that much of a surprise. She was running in lane 2 the entire race and could never settle in and ran out of gas.
Thankfully she got beat. Can’t handle watching another awkward and boring interview from her.
rojo wrote:
Rockgip wrote:
What I will say is that I like John Anderson a lot better than Ato Bolden
You're joking right. John is great at interviews. Ato is great at spring analysis. They are totally different jobs.
The problem with this is there is no professional play by play guy (basically three field events are doing the commentary and all of them should be color only). They need a play by play person and a distance person.
I have to say the BBC in the UK do a far better job - the standard of US commentary is utterly shocking. We've got your very own Michael Johnson for the sprints (he's BRILLIANT, ESPN should grab him) and seems to have recovered well from his recent stroke; Steve Cram for middle and long distance analysis and race commentary (he's really excellent at both); Colin Jackson for the sprinting and hurdling; Paula Radcliffe occasionally chips in with something worthwhile to say in the distance; Denise Lewis is great at jumps and field events, being a former champion herself in the heptathalon. It must be said that Steve Cram and Michael Johnson are leagues ahead and make it a very enjoyable watch every time. The stats guys backing them up are also very good.
It begs the question - just why is US track and field commentary so (so very) bad??
man McDonald's turnover is so smooth and relaxed.
Did Fisher change his form? It looks like his arm swing is a little different.
Poo Pig Sooie wrote:
Lady Razorbacks are going to choke. USC will win the women's title.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you don't really know what's going on with team scoring, but you pretend you do, and then the stupid comments come out of your mouth! I hate when that happens!...…………………….Arkansas Lady Razorbacks for the Championship!!!
So team wise. Florida has won the men's title. Not that ESPN has told us that. In the women's race, Arkansas is up 8 heading into the 4 x 400 so Arkansas is guaranteed a victory unles USC wins the 4 x 400 and Arkansas doesn't score at least 2 points. USC is seeded 6th and Arkansas is seeded 4th.
Punto Cana wrote:
Is is just me, or does it seem weird that an NCAA team could win every event and still lose the meet? Shouldn't winning a title pay out a higher point premium relative to second, third, etc.?
When I was coaching at Cornell, when our team was really rocking, I realized that yes we averaged more than 10 points per event. So another team could win every event as we'd still beat them.
But no, Idon't think it's weird.
If you win an event and I go 2-3 in every event, I think the team that goes 2-3 is much better. They have 2 good people in every event - the other team only has 1.